Project 1: Tech­nol­ogy & Aes­thet­ics — ana­lytic web­text

• 20 points; due 05-Oct
• 1000 words + multimedia — web­text design guide
• Using research: 3 aca­d­e­mic + 2 pop­u­lar sources (min­i­mum)
  — MLA Style (quo­ta­tions and citations)

Web­texts: “screen-based schol­arly arti­cles that use dig­i­tal media to enact the authors’ argu­ment.” (Cheryl Ball)

 
 
Overview: 
A research essay dis­cussing crit­i­cally an artist, work, and medium of your choice, as well as the aes­thetic processes/techniques and impact of tech­nol­ogy
— propos­ing a new under­stand­ing from your analy­sis, for a spe­cial­ized audi­ence (dis­course community).

 
 
Objec­tives:
 

  1) Sup­port an over­all ana­lytic the­sis with mate­ri­als from research, using spe­cific exam­ples (from research and your observations/critique) to illus­trate your insights:
new ideas and crit­i­cal obser­va­tions con­nect­ing the art form (medium + works), tech­nol­ogy (hard­ware, deliv­ery, etc,), and con­text (his­tor­i­cal sit­u­a­tion, aes­thetic move­ment, audience).

2) Going beyond sim­ple descrip­tion, pro­pose a new or alter­na­tive under­stand­ing with this view (“ana­lytic lens”) in terms of artis­tic prac­tices or tech­niques, con­sid­er­ing and dis­cussing explic­itly the role of tech­nol­ogy. Per­haps present a new or updated label or cat­e­gory for your read­ers — or at least a qual­i­fy­ing descrip­tion — to under­stand this art within media ecol­ogy.
— For instance, you might update an estab­lished cat­e­gory; focus on part of the rhetor­i­cal sit­u­a­tion (e.g. audi­ence, con­text, pur­pose); name the new / inno­v­a­tive work pro­duced this way; or address an over­looked aspect (e.g. mate­ri­al­ity, dig­i­tal process, deliv­ery platform)

Overview & Goals

This for­mal project presents an analy­sis about art and tech­nol­ogy, with the goal of propos­ing a new under­stand­ing about this rela­tion­ship by draw­ing upon your research, obser­va­tions, and first-hand expe­ri­ence, apply­ing advanced con­tent knowl­edge.
Imag­in­ing an audi­ence in your field (dis­course com­mu­nity) read­ing your work online (web­text), the main objec­tive is to pro­pose and sup­port an ana­lytic the­sis (insights) about art and art-making con­cern­ing devel­op­ments in media and tech­nol­ogy for aes­thetic prac­tices: most effec­tively, by sup­port­ing crit­i­cal obser­va­tions with effec­tive descrip­tions and con­crete exam­ples, extend­ing mas­tery of writ­ing conventions.

Imag­ined Audi­ence (rhetor­i­cal sit­u­a­tion): aca­d­e­mic read­ers (pri­mary); as well as mem­bers of the art field
— both of whom are rel­a­tively famil­iar with cur­rent tech­nol­ogy and media
(con­sider: might not need to explain cer­tain aspects — hard­ware / soft­ware / plat­forms — while other points should be described in detail).

Instruc­tions & Para­me­ters (guide)

• Pri­mar­ily: present insights from your analy­sis — using mate­r­ial from research and art­works observed — about art and con­tem­po­rary tech­nol­ogy (media ecology).

  • Dis­cuss crit­i­cal points, sup­ported with spe­cific exam­ples; arrange dis­cus­sion top­i­cally.

  • Pro­pose new under­stand­ing about the con­nec­tion of our key top­ics, reflect­ing media-studies perspective:

    art­form, medium, artist (exam­ple), spe­cific art­works;
    tech­nol­ogy (hard­ware, soft­ware, delivery/platform);
    his­tor­i­cal con­text, aes­thetic movement/trends

  • Your the­sis should be an ana­lytic insight about any two or more of these top­ics: for instance, cre­ativ­ity & artis­tic prac­tices using tech­nol­ogy; his­tor­i­cal con­text and pro­duc­tion; rela­tion of for­mal ele­ments con­cern­ing audi­ence, pur­pose, venue/occasion (“deliv­ery”?), repro­duc­tion (or not); dis­course com­mu­ni­ties (schol­arly, pro­fes­sional, pop­u­lar) and insti­tu­tions; aes­thetic trends or move­ments (over­lap­ping, emer­gent, alter­na­tive, sec­ondary / less main­stream in “media archae­ol­ogy” view?).

 

• Use spe­cial­ized dis­course of topic, while engag­ing with new mate­r­ial at sophis­ti­cated lev­els reflect­ing acquired con­tent knowledge.

  • Rel­e­vant terms/concepts (2 min­i­mum) from assigned read­ings and/or your research (5 min­i­mum)

  • Beyond sim­ply using terms, incor­po­rate the con­cepts and the mate­r­ial stud­ied toward your pur­pose, imag­in­ing you are join­ing the “crit­i­cal con­ver­sa­tion” about this topic.
  • Sug­gest: Pro­pose and use a new/innovative/updated term or cat­e­gory — for the cre­ative process, aes­thetic move­ment, for­mal ele­ment, etc.

 

• Cre­ate com­pelling and effi­cient text for imag­ined read­ers by using a effec­tive aca­d­e­mic writ­ing styles

  • Com­bine mul­ti­ple modes, delib­er­ately used, such as crit­i­cal points, descrip­tive lan­guage, per­ti­nent exam­ples (lim­ited), and illus­tra­tive media

    • Note: this is not strictly descrip­tion of process — for artists researched or for you per­son­ally
      (avoid/omit; rephrase this into crit­i­cal dis­cus­sion by gen­er­at­ing ideas before com­pos­ing project)

   

  • Apply dig­i­tal rhetoric under­stand­ing and skills, com­pos­ing for online audi­ence:
    hyper­text (web­site) arrange­ment, with orga­ni­za­tion, links, mul­ti­ple media (see design guide)

• Apply tech­niques of effec­tive com­po­si­tion, mod­eled specif­i­cally from exam­ple texts (aca­d­e­mic arti­cles = dis­course community)

  • use spe­cific exam­ples of art­works and tech­nol­ogy — hard­ware, devices, soft­ware, deliv­ery plat­forms — within an observed “media ecol­ogy” (con­nect for your audi­ence / dis­course community)

• illus­trat­ing your crit­i­cal insights, using mul­ti­ple media (as webtext);

• doc­u­ment­ing exam­ples; as well, per­haps includ­ing (“sim­u­lat­ing”?) instances of the medi­a­tion process, in terms of cre­ative activ­ity, inter­face, presentation/delivery, audi­ence reception?

 

• Con­clude (sec­tion) with pro­posal and/or pre­dic­tion, spec­u­lat­ing and con­nect­ing key top­ics: for instance,
  
  appli­ca­tion for artists (new way to pro­duce / make?); devel­op­ments as trend or aes­thetic movement/s; impact of con­tin­ued tech­no­log­i­cal advance­ment (e.g. at level of hard­ware upgrades, soft­ware pro­duc­tion, cor­po­rate con­sol­i­da­tion, dis­tri­b­u­tion plat­forms); role in artis­tic pro­duc­tion and impact on cre­ativ­ity (per­sonal dimen­sion, sig­na­ture style, aes­thetic sen­si­bil­ity?); impli­ca­tions for audi­ence (recep­tion, “con­sump­tion,” expe­ri­ence); des­ig­na­tions blurred/drawn of what counts (and what does not) for “art” and cre­ative mak­ing; con­se­quence for institution(s) & dis­course com­mu­nity (field = artists + scholars)